Trial Transcript

[[ At the request of the defendant, names have not been changed. ]]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, 
vs. 
ROGER WILLIAM NEILL, Defendant.

No. 03TR041228

COURT TRIAL

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 2003

APPEARANCES

For the People: OFFICER JOHN McCURRY, California Highway Patrol

For Defendant: ROGER WILLIAM NEILL, Pro Per

-o0o-

 
THE COURT:  Okay. Mr. Neill.  You know how the process works at this point?

MR. NEILL:    Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT:  All right. Are we -- I’m going to ask, do you want to change your plea to no contest and ask for traffic school?

MR. NEILL:    No, thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT:  Okay. I don’t think I’m going to get any takers for that. You know that?

Officer, you want to get started again.

OFFICER McCURRY: Yes, your Honor. John McCurry, M-c-C-u-r-r-y, employed by the California Highway Patrol, have been so for the past eight years, currently assigned to the red light camera program for Sacramento County.

I’ll briefly explain my training, experience, as well as the technology of the system. And then I’ll go over the pertinent information for this particular violation.

I've been trained -- trained in the red light camera system by a company called ACS. This is a two-day training course which I attended. This included field and classroom work. And at the completion of the course, I was required to pass a written test, which I did so successfully, certifying me in the theory and operation of the red light camera system.

Page 2:

The system is comprised of a camera, a flash unit, a film canister, onboard computer with memory card, and a set of a two electromagnetic loops, which are embedded into the roadway.

This system is designed so that the first photograph can only be taken when the light is red. Additionally, three elements must exist before a violation can be captured on film:

One, the light must be red for at least two-tenths of a second. Two, the vehicle must be traveling in a prescribed direction over the mag -- electromagnetic loops, being the vehicle has to go forward over the loops. It can’t back up and activate the system. Three, the vehicle must be traveling at or above a program minimum speed, which is 12 miles per hour for turns and 15 miles per hour for straight-throughs.

This particular violation is a left-hand turn; therefore, it must be traveling at a minimum of 12 miles per hour.

This system is maintained on a daily basis, excluding weekends and holidays. Maintenance includes checking the internal operations and components of the computer, as well as retrieval of the film.

Once collected, the film is sent to a processing center where it’s developed and digitized. The digitized photos are then sent through a T-l line to computer terminals located at the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, where I work out of.

Page 3:

CHP officers and/or sheriff personnel review all images captured by the camera via the T-1 line onto the computer. When it is in the opinion of the reviewing officer that the violation meets all criteria as I mentioned before, the officer will obtain and assert all pertinent information and attach to the photograph such as the registration -- registered owner of the vehicle and driver’s license information. The officer will then send the citation via U.S. Mail to the registered owner of the violator vehicle.

On February 13th, 2003, at 8:27 in the morning, a violation of 21453(c) of the California Vehicle Code was captured on film. The violation occurred at westbound Fair Oaks Boulevard to southbound Watt Avenue. And this is located in the unincorporated county of Sacramento.

A citation was issued to the registered owner of a 1999 Chevy pickup truck bearing the California license plate -- it’s a personalized plate -- of R, as in Robert, 0, as in ocean, G, as in George, A, as in Adam, H, as in Henry, and H, as in Henry.

The citation was issued via U.S. Mail on February 19th, 2003, which is within the 15-day requirement as set forth by the California Vehicle Code.

Your Honor, I have three photographs with me here today. They were taken by the camera of this violation. They are premarked People’s 1, 2, and 3. I’d like to show the defendant these photographs and explain them further to the court.

[Pause]

Page 4:

OFFICER McCURRY: Your Honor, People’s Exhibit No. 1 is a color photograph.

At this particular intersection, there are three left-hand turn lanes. We have one camera monitoring the first and second left-hand turn lane and then the third camera, which is this particular camera, monitoring the third left-hand turn lane, what we call the No. 1 lane, because it only monitors one lane. But it is a third left ­hand turn lane in this situation.

The photograph that I have here is a color photograph. It shows the defendant’s red pickup truck in the No. 3 left-hand turn lane, clearly behind the crosswalk. There is a superimposed databox on top of the photograph. There are three lines within the box. The very top line indicates the date and time of the violation, which is 8:27 in the morning on February 13th, 2003. The second line, the left-hand side, 1Y3.5, this is the No. 1 loop lane, which is the third left-hand turn lane in this instance. The vehicle was in that lane. And it indicates the light had been yellow for 3.5 seconds before it turned red.

Page 5:

Next to that, R003, this indicates when this photograph was taken, the light had been red for three-tenths of a second, showing the defendant’s vehicle still behind the crosswalk, not having entered into the intersection yet. And the third line, left-hand side, 007, this is the seventh violation on this particular film canister. And next to that, 4028, is the location code that we use for this camera at Fair Oaks and Watt. The second photograph that I have here, premarked People’s Exhibit No. 2, is a color photograph. It now shows the defendant’s vehicle in the intersection. There is a superimposed databox on top. There are three lines. The very top line indicates the same date and time as the first photograph. The second line, left-hand side, 3.73, this is the amount of time that has elapsed between the first photograph and second photograph. So it took the subject 3.73 seconds to get from the first photograph to the second photograph, the location.

Next to that, R040, this indicates, when this photograph was taken, the light had been red for 4.0 seconds, showing the defendant’s vehicle in the middle of the intersection, indicating he did not stop prior to the crosswalk for the red light.

The third line, left-hand side, 007, once again, is the seventh violation on this particular film canister. And next to that, V equals 24, this indicates while, in photograph No. 1, when the defendant’s vehicle would be still behind the crosswalk, he was traveling 24 miles per hour.

The third photograph that I have here is a color photograph. It is a blowup of People’s No. 2. It is used for identification. purposes. It is my opinion that the gentleman seat to my right is the driver of the vehicle in this photograph.

Page 6:

If there are no objections, I’d like to introduce People’s 1, 2, and 3 as evidence in this matter.

MR. NEILL: Your Honor, I have only one objection, and that is that a proper foundation be laid for admission of this evidence and that it conform to the requirements of Vehicle Code Section 21455.7.

THE COURT: I’m sorry. My ears are a little plugged.

MR. NEILL: Oh.

THE COURT:  21 --

MR. NEILL: -- 455.7, which states, “At each intersection at which there is an automated enforcement system in operation, the minimum yellow light change interval shall be established in accordance with the traffic manual of the Department of Transportation.”

So I’d just like for a proper foundation to be laid before these --

THE COURT:  So --

MR. NEILL: -- photographs are admitted into evidence.

THE COURT:  What are you claiming is not --

MR. NEILL: It has not been established on the record that the system which took these photographs was being operated with a minimum yellow light change interval as established by the traffic manual of the Department of Transportation, as specified in Vehicle Code Section 21455 .7.

Page 7:

OFFICER McCURRY: Well, your Honor, if you’d like to do that, I can do that. But if he wants me to do that, maybe I should specify to everything that relates to red light camera systems to lay the foundation for this.

THE COURT: Well, he’s only raised the one objection. So --

OFFICER McCURRY: Okay. I can address that.  The -- Vehicle Code Section 21455.7 requires that all yellow times -- with an automated traffic system set up that the yellow time be in accordance with the Department of Transportation’s traffic -- safety traffic -- traffic safety manual.

This yellow time is in accordance with that manual. The manual itself gives a recommended speed. And I will provide the court this information.

THE COURT: What is the anticipated -- or recommended speed for left-hand turns?

OFFICER McCURRY: The recommended speed for left-hand turns is 3.1. However, the County of Sacramento has set all of their lights, yellow times for its automated system, at 3.5 seconds. However, it could be 3.4999. [Indiscernible] 3 .4.

So the yellow time on this particular violation greatly exceeds the recommended yellow time set forth by Caltrans, which is the California Vehicle Code mandates.

THE COURT: Okay. Do you have those documents?

OFFICER McCURRY: Yes.

[Off-record conversation]

THE COURT: Is that for the defendant? Is that for me? Is that for the court?

Page 8:

[Off-record conversation]

[Pause]

OFFICER McCURRY: Your Honor, what I’m presenting to you is a portion of the Department of Transportation --

THE COURT: Show then to the defendant first.

OFFICER McCURRY: Oh. -- the Department of Transportation safety traffic manual.  It’s dated -- it’s the most current edition, November 2002. It goes into Section 9-04.5. It discusses yellow change intervals.

Additionally, I have a letter from the senior civil engineer of signal operations for the Public Works, the County of Sacramento, also addressing yellow times and, specifically, addressing left-hand turns in the Caltrans traffic manual.  [[Reproduced below, and later admitted as People's Exhibit 7.]]

MR. NEILL: This is very close, your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Neill, I will be having copies of that made, so you will have a copy to -- to look at.

MR. NEILL: Oh, that would be fine. I only wanted to point out that there’s a table, 9-1, that’s specified in this section regarding yellow interval times that is not included.

OFFICER McCURRY: Right.

MR. NEILL: And the table documents the actual mathematical formula to determine minimum yellow --

OFFICER McCURRY: Right. There’s a mathematical formula you put in, the approach speed of the vehicle, and additionally, like braking distance, and you come up with a set time.

Page 9:

However, it gives you an -- an approach speed. It tells you what it is. I can actually work up the mathematical formula for the defendant at this particular intersection if you’d like me to. It would probably take about five minutes. I could probably draw it all up there.

MR. NEILL: I also have a copy of the table, which I got off-line. I don’t know if it’s the latest.

OFFICER McCURRY: If he got it off - line, your Honor, it is the most latest information. It’s the 2002.

THE COURT: Do you --

MR. NEILL: Which --

THE COURT: -- want that admitted into evidence as well?

MR. NEILL: As long as it’s -- yes, that would be fine.

THE COURT: Okay. Would you hand it to the officer.

[Pause]

OFFICER McCURRY: Yes, your Honor. It’s the mathematical formula on how they derive at the numbers.

THE COURT: Okay. So we’re going to have People’s Exhibits --

THE CLERK: 6 and. 7.

THE COURT: -- 6 and 7 and Defendant’s Exhibit --

THE CLERK: A.

THE COURT: -- A.

MR. NEILL: And with that, your Honor, I have no further objection to the admission of the photographs.

Page 10:

THE COURT:  Okay. Then I will admit them.

[People’s Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 admitted into evidence]

OFFICER McCURRY: Your Honor, as I had mentioned earlier, this system is maintained on a daily basis, excluding weekends and holidays.

We have field technicians that go out to the cameras and ensure they are functioning properly. When they go out there, they will check the cameras and they will fill out a field service and inspection log and notate the results on these logs.

I have two such logs with me today. They are premarked People’s 4 and 5, I’d like to show the defendant these photograph -- or, excuse me -- these logs and explain them further to the court.

Your Honor, People's Exhibit No. 4 is a field service and inspection log dated February 12th, 2003. It’s with camera location code 4028. It’s the same camera in question. If you were looking at the photographs, it would be the same location code, Fair Oaks and Watt Avenue.

The technician that filled this out is a Dustin Thomas. He signed and dated the inspection log. He began the service at 14:20 hours and completed the service at 14:24 hours. He indicated the system was functioning properly and there were no problems with it.

Page 11:

What I have here is People’s Exhibit No. 5. This is a field service and inspection log dated February 13th, 2003, for camera location code 4028, the same -- the same camera in question. The technician that filled this out is a Dustin Thomas. He signed and dated it. He began the service at 11:12 hours and completed it at 11:18 hours. He indicated the system was functioning properly and there were no problems with it.

Your Honor, if there are no objections, I’d like to introduce People’s 4 and 5 as evidence in this matter that this system was functioning properly at the time of the violation.

MR. NEILL:    Your Honor, I don’t see any indication on these forms that this certifies in any way that the traffic signal light itself is operating properly or has been tested. However, for the purpose of documenting that the automated enforcement system is functioning properly and was checked, I have no objection.

THE COURT:  Okay. They’re so admitted.

[People’s Exhibit Nos. 4, 5 admitted into evidence]

THE COURT:   Mr. Neill, do you have any objection to the admission of People’s 6 and 7?

MR. NEILL:    No, your Honor.

THE COURT:  Okay. Officer McCurry, do you have any objection to admission of Defense Exhibit A?

OFFICER McCURRY: No, your Honor.

THE COURT:  All exhibits are so entered then.

[People’s Exhibit Nos. 6, 7, Defendant’s Exhibit A admitted into evidence]

Page 12:

OFFICER McCURRY: I have no further [sic], your Honor.

THE COURT:  I'm sorry, sir?

OFFICER McCURRY: I have no further [sic].

THE COURT:  Nothing further. Okay.

Okay. Okay. Mr. Neill, you’re up. Do you have any questions for the officer or --

MR. NEILL:    Yes, I do, your Honor, just a very few questions. And I’d like to say in advance what it is I’m trying to show by these -- this series of just a few questions.

I’m trying to show that Vehicle Code Section 21453(c), the section that I am charged with violating, expressly specifies that the intentions of the driver at the moment of entering the intersection is an element of this offense and that demonstrating the driver’s intention at the moment prior to entering the intersection is not conducive to proof by photographic evidence.

So with that in mind, I would just ask, you are a law enforcement officer, Officer McCurry?

OFFICER McCURRY: Yes, I am.

MR. NEILL:    And by what government agency are you employed?

OFFICER McCURRY: The California Highway Patrol.

MR. NEILL:    And how long have you been -- been employed, by that agency in the capacity of a law enforcement officer?

OFFICER McCURRY: Eight years.

Page 13:

MR. NEILL:    Are your present duties exclusively in the area of automated enforcement systems or do you also do patrol work?

OFFICER McCURRY: I -- my primary function is the red light camera system; however, I do patrol at times.

MR. NEILL:    You do. And have -- have you done patrol duties in the field in the past during your eight years?

OFFICER McCURRY: Seven years prior.

MR. NEILL:    Have you ever issued a citation for a red light or a red arrow violation before while on patrol at the intersection of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue?

THE COURT:  I’m going to disallow that question unless you can explain to me why that’s relevant.

MR. NEILL:    I’m trying to test the officer’s familiarity with this particular intersection that’s involved in this violation.

THE COURT:  That question doesn’t do that.

MR. NEILL:    Okay. I’ll withdraw the question then, your Honor.

THE COURT:  Okay.

MR. NEILL:    Are you generally familiar with the intersection of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue?

OFFICER McCURRY: Yes, I am.

MR. NEILL:    I’d like to show the witness an overhead photograph of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue, your Honor --

THE COURT:  Okay.

Page 14:

MR. NEILL:    -- for the purpose of just the general familiarity with the lanes and where the signal locations are.

THE COURT:  All right. That will be Peo -- or Defense Exhibit B.

[Defendant’s Exhibit B marked for identification]

MR. NEILL: Yes, your Honor.

[Pause]

[Off-record conversation]

MR. NEILL:    Does that seem, generally, an accurate overhead portrayal of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue? Where -- this would be Fair Oaks Boulevard approaching westbound toward. [Indicating.] The west, it angles in. And there’s three left turn lanes for turning left onto southbound Watt Avenue.

OFFICER McCURRY: Your Honor, this could be the intersection. It looks similar. This is a -- this photograph is a -- as you see, it’s extremely high -- bless you. It’s extremely high In the air.

Truthfully, it -- it could be any intersection that has the same kind of setup. I don’t know specifically if it is that intersection or not. Just from the -- the vantage point of this, it’s not close enough to identify landmarks.

THE COURT:  Okay.

Page 15:

MR. NEILL:    Your Honor, by way of identifying the photograph, I can swear under penalty of perjury that I obtained this photograph from a commercial source. And --

THE COURT: Officer McCurry, would you bring it up, please.

OFFICER McCURRY:  Sure. [Pause]

THE COURT:  For what purpose do you want to have this photograph admitted, sir?

MR. NEILL:    To expedite the description of this intersection and the number of lanes and in which directions those lanes of traffic are traveling and where these precise signal lights are located at the intersection and for the purpose of visually demonstrating how the intentions of the driver it one of those left turn lanes is significant to this case in -- in --

THE COURT:  Well, I’m going to have to agree with the officer. For those purposes, this photograph is not adequate.

MR. NEILL:    Okay. Well, I can do it --

THE COURT:  For giving a general idea of the area, you know, I -- I’m happy to take your word for it. But this isn’t going to be detailed enough to provide that kind of information. I think the officer has testified that he is generally familiar with the intersection. And --

MR. NEILL:    Very well, your Honor.

THE COURT:  -- that’s going to have to do. I’m sorry.

Page 16:

MR. NEILL:    That's no problem. I withdraw the photograph.

THE COURT:  No. We have to keep it for our records.

MR. NEILL: Oh, okay. Very good.

Let’s -- using the officer’s photographs then from the automatic enforcement system, is it true that -- that my vehicle that I’m driving is traveling west -- you know, westerly -- a westbound direction on Fair Oaks Boulevard and it’s in one pf three left turn lanes westbound on Fair Oaks Boulevard that is attempting to turn left onto southbound Watt avenue?

OFFICER McCURRY: That is correct.

MR. NEILL:    And of those three lanes, is my vehicle -- if we could assign numbers to those lanes. The left most lane on Fair Oaks Boulevard turning left, call it No. 1, the center lane, No. 2, and the right-hand most left turn lane, No. 3. Would you say I was -- my vehicle was in lane No. 3?

OFFICER McCURRY:  Yes.

MR. NEILL:    Okay.

THE COURT:  Mr. Neill, the officer’s already testified to all of this. You need to move on to new ground, please.

MR. NEILL:    Okay. Well, could you please read then Section -- Vehicle Code Section 21453(c), which I am charged with violating?

OFFICER McCURRY:   Read it aloud?

MR. NEILL:    Right. Do you have it with you?

Page 17:

OFFICER McCURRY:  Sure.

THE COURT: I -- I -- why?

MR. NEILL:    For the purpose of entering it into the record, the -- the precise Vehicle Code which I am charged with violating.

THE COURT:  Do you not have a copy of it, sir?

MR. NEILL:    Yes, I do.

THE COURT:  Then all three of us have copies of it.

MR. NEILL:    Okay. Very well, your Honor. I’m sorry.

A copy of section -- Vehicle Code Section 21453 states, and I quote, “A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked limit line,” and then it goes on to describe limit line exceptions.

As you read this violation, Officer, must a driver in the No. 3 left-hand turn lane westbound on Watt Avenue -- or westbound on Fair Oaks Avenue [sic] -- excuse me -- stop at a red arrow if their intention at that time is -- and there is a solid green signal to proceed through on Fair Oaks Boulevard, through the intersection, cannot that driver proceed through the intersection, obeying the other traffic signal?

Page 18:

Isn’t that what this Vehicle Code section is saying, that it’s not a violation of this section if the driver intended to make a movement permitted by another signal at that same intersection?

OFFICER McCURRY: That’s actually correct. That’s a specific violation. If you were to make a left-hand turn against the red, you’d be in violation of that section. However, if you continued straight from that -- that lane, you’d be in violation of a different section, improper lane usage. But --

THE COURT:  Mr. -- Mr. Neill, is it your contention that you did not make a left-hand turn?

MR. NEILL:    It is my contention, your Honor, that it was my intention --

THE COURT:  I’m not asking your intention, sir. I’m asking, are you contending that you did not make a left-hand turn?

MR. NEILL:    When I crossed the red arrow signal, I intended to change lanes and proceed straight through the solid green light along with the traffic that was proceeding westbound on Fair Oaks Boulevard.

THE COURT:  I understand what you have testified to. Are you -- you have not answered my question, however. Are you stating that you did not make a left-hand turn at the intersection of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Watt Avenue?

MR. NEILL:    No, I’m not saying that.

THE COURT:  Very well.

Page 19:

MR. NEILL:    The second photograph shows that I completed a left turn. The point that I’m trying to make, your Honor, is that at the time I penetrated the limit line against a red arrow, there was a solid green signal to proceed straight on -- across the intersection and on --and continue on down Fair Oaks Boulevard instead of turning left. That was my intention at the moment that I -- that I penetrated the limit line through the red arrow.

But Section 21453(c) of the Vehicle Code says that as long as my intention, when I crossed the limit line, was to perform a maneuver permitted by another signal at the intersection, then I have not committed a violation at that point in time. And --

THE COURT:  I understand your argument. It’s very creative. Do you have anything else?

MR. NEILL:    Yes.

[Pause]

MR. NEILL:    Okay. The second point that I wish to make -- and we touched on it with the introduction of the photographs -- is that the automated enforcement system that is being operated at Watt and Fair Oaks Boulevard is not, in fact, operating in conformance with the minimum yellow change interval time as established by law.

THE COURT:  And how is that?

MR. NEILL:    By referring to the mathematical equation, your Honor, which was introduced in Table 9-1, laying the foundation for the admission of the photographs --

THE COURT:  Did you read People’s Exhibit 7? A copy was given to you, sir.  [[Reproduced below.]]

Page 20:

MR. NEILL:    Is this the letter from the County of Sacramento?

THE COURT:  Yes it is.

MR. NEILL:    No, I haven’t read that, your Honor.

THE COURT:  You need to read that, sir. We’ll give you a minute to do that.

MR. NEILL:    Okay.

[Pause]

[Off the record]

MR. NEILL:  I don’t -- I don’t really understand. I would understand if -- if the field engineer is stating that the yellow times at all Sacramento County intersections exceed -- exceed the yellow time specified by the Caltrans traffic manual. They certainly do. They exceed them in the wrong direction, is what I’m trying to say.

THE COURT:  That they’re too long?

MR. NEILL:    No. That they’re too short.

THE COURT:  No. This says that the county’s standard yellow time for left turn approaches are 3.5 seconds, which meets the requirements for the approach speeds up to 35 miles per hour, greatly exceeds the Caltrans District 3, 3.1 seconds yellow for left turns based on approach speeds of 18 to 25 miles per hour.

Page 21:

MR. NEILL:    On westbound Fair Oaks Boulevard, any speeds up to 40 miles per hour are lawful, left turn or otherwise. And 3.5 seconds does -- is not enough seconds of yellow time to conform with the Caltrans traffic manual for an area where the lawful speed is 40 miles per hour. In which case, it’s 3.9 seconds.

THE COURT:  So it's your argument that because the maximum posted speed limit on Fair Oaks Boulevard in that area is 40 miles per hour, you should be able to go --you should be able to approach a left-hand turn at 40 miles per hour?

MR. NEILL:    Any yellow time, your Honor, that is less than that will, in fact, establish what’s called a dilemma zone, where a driver in the dilemma zone has no lawful alternative, no lawful option available to them.

Now, if -- if the County of Sacramento wanted to make those yellow times 5 seconds, there would be no dilemma zone. In fact, at 40 miles per hour, as on Watt Avenue, at 4.0 seconds, there is no dilemma zone.

But as soon as you start making them smaller and you get down to 3.5 seconds or less, you’re creating a dilemma zone, where drivers traveling at a lawful speed can be caught on a section of the roadway which leaves them no legal option. When the light turns yellow, they are doomed to break the law.

And I have a report on that topic from the Institute of -- for Transportation Research and Education at North Carolina State University, which I’d be happy to introduce into evidence.

THE COURT:  You need to show it to the officer first.

OFFICER McCURRY: And what is this?

Page 22:

MR. NEILL:    It’s a research study that’s published by the North Carolina State University Institute for Transportation Research and Education. It was written by a professional engineer and a senior research associate, along with some others. And it’s a discussion on yellow time calculations and red light enforcement tolerances that are applicable to this -- this case.

If it were not for this 3.5 seconds, that would not be relevant, your Honor. If Sacramento County said 4.0 seconds or 4.5 seconds, there would be no dilemma zone and this would not be relevant

It’s only when they try to want to reduce the yellow time interval to below 4.0 seconds for a 40-mile-per-hour zone like Watt -- like Fair Oaks Boulevard that they create dilemma zones, where drivers are left with no lawful option if they happen to be in that dilemma zone when the light turns yellow.

THE COURT:  Officer McCurry, do you have any objection to the --

OFFICER McCURRY: Your Honor, this appears to be an opinion by someone who is not a -- a government official that is in charge of this program.

Additionally, I don’t know where this -- or the defendant received this information. I don’t think it’s a public document; so, therefore, I can’t -- I’m not saying that the subject would give me something that he has changed or made up. However, I don’t know of its origination. Therefore, I would not -- I would request that it be denied being entered into evidence.

Page 23:

THE COURT: Okay. Bring it up to me.

[Pause]

THE COURT:  Would you mark this -- where are we up to?

THE CLERK:  C.

THE COURT:  C on Defendant’s.

[Defendant’s Exhibit C marked for identification]

[Pause]

THE COURT:  Mr. Neill, I understand your argument. And, again, it’s another very creative argument except for one small problem; and that is, Vehicle Code Section 22350, which is the basic speed law which says you should not be driving in excess --

[Off-record conversation]

THE COURT:  -- at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent.

And you’re trying to make the argument, therefore, that it is reasonable and prudent to drive 40 miles an hour approaching a left-hand turn light. And you’re going to have to convince me that that’s reasonable and prudent, because it seems fast to me.

MR. NEILL:    Well --

THE COURT:  And I'm -- I’m open to the argument. I’m just saying, you know, you’re going to have to convince me.

Page 24:

MR. NEILL:    It’s lawful. And I’m aware that -- because I drive through this intersection every day and have for four years. There are times when it is not possible to drive 40 miles per hour in one of those left turn lanes. And, certainly, by the time you get to the intersection, even though it is a very large intersection, allowing ample room in which to turn -- I mean, I believe I could make a 39-mile-per-hour left-turn lane [sic] on that particular intersection, your Honor. Just because of its hugeness, it’s usually not reasonable and prudent to do so.

But this, of course -- because the yellow times have been shortened, this works to the disadvantage of the driver who is approaching this and -- and, basically, because of reasonableness, is forced to slow down. So that if that driver makes the wrong decision when that light turns yellow -- you know, whereas, at 40 miles per hour, they could get into the intersection on the yellow and --and not even trigger the automated enforcement system, but they are restricted by reasonableness, as you say, that prevents them from -- from that being a correct decision.

In other words, that’s a wrong decision, which they have to make at the instant the yellow light comes on. If they make that incorrect -- incorrect, instantaneous decision, they will -- they will not make it to the intersection before the light turns red. Their only hope is to try and stop the car, regardless of what speed --lawful speed they’re going prior to the intersection and regardless of what risks that may entail.

Page 25:

THE COURT:  Okay. Officer McCurry, do you have any rebuttal?

OFFICER McCURRY: About this specific point?

THE COURT:  Yes.

OFFICER McCURRY: The Vehicle Code states that you have to -- you must follow -- for yellow times, follow the Caltrans safety traffic manual. The safety traffic manual says yellow times are determined upon approach speeds. Nowhere does it say that it’s determined upon posted speed limits, prima facie, or maximum speed limits. It’s based upon approach speeds.

Now, that may be vague and it’s -- and it’s what they listed. However, the approach speeds are determined by the civil engineers, which work for the State of California, which are subsequently liable for any sort of lawsuits that may come about. So when they make these determinations, they’re making it as far as being safe for the public, which our whole system is designed to deter aggressive driving behaviors.

And the approach speed, as determined by Caltrans, District -- I think it’s District 3, for left-hand turns, they determined the approach safe speed to be 18 to 25 miles for a left-hand turn.

Now, could he make a left-hand turn at 40 miles per hour doing that? Yes, he could. That would be unsafe. And it would not be prudent for a person to do something like that. Just as going down Watt Avenue, maybe, during the day and there’s no traffic, on a Sunday, 50 miles per hour may be a safe speed; however, it doesn’t affect the yellow time of 4.0 seconds.

Page 26:

What we’re talking about here is the approach speed. And the approach speed has been determined by civil engineers with safety in mind. And they’ve determined that the safe speed be 18 to 25, in which our yellow time actually exceeds their recommendation.

THE COURT:  Okay. Any other theories, Mr. Neill?

MR. NEILL:    Just one more, your Honor. And -- and I did have one question that I forgot to ask, just one --

THE COURT:  Okay.

MR. NEILL:    -- of the officer regarding maintenance of the signals.

Are the technicians that respond to you -- or under your auspices, as you are the government agency that’s operating this system. Do -- the technicians, under your auspices, are they cape -- are they -- is it within their authority to adjust tolerances or other technical settings with the traffic signals themselves?

OFFICER McCURRY: With our --

MR. NEILL:    Can they open up a traffic signal and adjust yellow times or --

OFFICER McCURRY: The traffic signal or the camera?

MR. NEILL:    The signal.

OFFICER McCURRY: No. They’re --

MR. NEILL:    Do your technicians maintain the traffic --

Page 27:

THE COURT:  You mean the camera system technicians?

MR. NEILL:    Right. Do they --

OFFICER McCURRY: No.

MR. NEILL:    -- maintain the traffic signal?

OFFICER McCURRY: No. They’re separate entities. The County of Sacramento maintains the signal system.

MR. NEILL:    Okay.

THE COURT:  And you said you had one more theory.

MR. NEILL:    One more theory, your Honor, and I’ll try to make it as brief as possible.

THE COURT:  That would be good.

MR. NEILL:    But it’s the most creative, if possible.

I maintain that the manner in which these automated enforcement systems are being operated in Sacramento County creates a classification which treats persons situated -- which treats persons similarly situated in an unequal manner, thereby, depriving them of equal protection of the law.

Page 28:

That theory is founded on the equation that’s listed in Table 9-1 of the Caltrans traffic manual. That mathematical equation, the very first parameter in determining yellow time is human reaction time. And that formula merely specifies that all of us human beings and citizens of California have a reaction time of 1.0 seconds. There are published studies which show there is a wide variation in human reaction time. Perhaps, this officer has had some training in human reaction time.

It varies widely among human beings. And, yet, this system creates a classification whereby there are two groups of human beings: those that can -- through physical dexterity, youth, and prowess, mental prowess, they can achieve the 1.0 second reaction time, human reaction time, and those of us who can-not, your Honor, despite -- try as we might, we are limited in -- in the group that cannot meet the 1.0 second reaction time by our physical characteristics.

And, thereby, we have a situation here, because the county chooses to reduce the yellow time rather than get rid of the dilemma zone entirely --

THE COURT:  Mr. Neill, are you sure you want to make this argument on the record?

MR. NEILL:    Yes. Yes.

THE COURT:  Okay.

MR. NEILL:    And, particularly, based on the --just the few cases I saw here this morning. Each one of them is a violation -- was a violation -- an alleged violation of Section 21453(c) --

THE COURT:  So you’re saying that you cannot meet the 1.0 second reaction time used by Caltrans in setting the length of --

MR. NEILL:    And this sets me apart from those who can, your Honor, and makes me a lawbreaker. Whereas, those who can meet the 1.0 second reaction time are not. And that deprives me of equal protection of the laws.

Page 29:

THE COURT:  What I think it should deprive you of is a driver’s license, sir, because I believe you’ve just testified you’re not competent to drive.

MR. NEILL:    Ah, no. No. Actually, the 1.0 second reaction time is for a very youthful human being at peak, at peak efficiency.

THE COURT:  Officer McCurry.

OFFICER McCURRY: Yes, your Honor. The 1.0 second reaction time actually exceeds the average person’s reaction time as being a time distance.

And a braking expert for the California Highway Patrol, working mathematical equations for traffic accidents, the average time we use for reaction time is 0.75 seconds. Caltrans has the reaction time set at 1.00 seconds, which exceeds -- exceeds the average time that we use for determining our figures.

Additionally, if the defendant can’t meet -- even meet these times, I feel that he is more dangerous to our society as a driver and is not -- the -- the point that he’s saying that we’re not giving him equal protection, a drive -- a driver’s license is a privilege to go out there and drive.

Page 30:

If he just can’t have normal reaction time or even close to normal reaction times and if he knows that he doesn’t have close normal reaction times, you should take that into consideration. I -- I think he’s a dangerous driver if he can’t even be close to normal reaction times and even take that into consideration. And, possibly, he should not have a driver’s license.

MR. NEILL:    Well, that would conflict with the authorities in the report that’s been admitted into evidence about the dilemma zone.

THE COURT:  It has not been admitted into evidence. I have not ruled on that. And it will not be admitted into evidence because it has not been properly authenticated.

MR. NEILL:    Well, will the record show that it was not admitted into evidence?

THE COURT:  I just took care of that.

MR. NEILL:    Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT:  Anything else, Mr. Neill?

MR. NEILL:    That is all, your Honor.

THE COURT:  Very well. Despite the best and most creative arguments I have ever heard, I am going to find you guilty of violating Vehicle Code 21453 (c). It is a mandatory $100 fine, plus penalty assessment.

If you’ll have a seat, one of the clerks will escort you over to the fine’s room, assuming it is still open.

THE CLERK:  It’s open. And the [indiscernible] is 281.

THE COURT:  Yes, the total is 281.

[Off-record conversation]

[Whereupon, the proceedings were concluded.]

Trial Exhibits

People's 7:

 Appeal

The defendant filed an opening brief, which is available at:  Appeal Brief.

The People did not file a reply brief, nor did they appear at the oral arguments held on Jan. 16, 2004, while the defendant did.

The Appellate Division's decision was issued on Jan. 20.  It said only:  "The judgment is AFFIRMED."  There was no explanation as to why.

[[ At the request of the defendant, names have not been changed. ]]